Delhi High Court - Orders
A. K. Varshney vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 August, 2021
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh
$~11(2021)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8100/2021 & CM Nos.25181-82/2021
A. K. VARSHNEY ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. R.K. Kapoor, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC for UOI
with Ms. Shrivalli Ghosh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
ORDER
% 10.08.2021 [Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19] CM No.25182/2021
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CM No.25181/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]
2. Mr. R.K. Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that he does not wish to press the captioned application. 2.1. Accordingly, the captioned application is closed. W.P.(C) 8100/2021
3. The record shows that, the petitioner was appointed as Senior Scientific Officer (Grade-I) in 1989 in the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy.
W.P.(C) 8100/2021 page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:12.08.2021 22:55:04 3.1 The petitioner was promoted to the post of Principal Scientific Officer on 02.09.1994.
3.2. The petitioner claimed promotion to the next level i.e. Scientist-F upon completion of the prescribed period of residency [i.e. 5 years] in the feeder category under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS), which, he was granted, on 22.11.2004. However, according to the petitioner, he attained eligibility qua the same, in 1999.
4. Mr. Kapoor admits that, since the petitioner was not found eligible in the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), which had convened in 1999, 2001 and 2002, he could not have been promoted to the level of Scientist-F in those years. However, it is Mr. Kapoor‟s contention that, the petitioner ought to have been granted promotion as Scientist-F under FCS w.e.f. 01.01.2003, when he attained eligibility, and not from 22.11.2004. 4.1. In other words, according to Mr. Kapoor, the petitioner should have been granted in situ promotion from the date, the petitioner became eligible, i.e., 01.01.2003. In support of this plea, Mr. Kapoor relies upon the judgment dated 05.10.2010, passed in W.P.(C.) No.14263/2004, titled S.K. Murti v. Union of India & Ors. This is a judgment of a coordinate Bench of this court, which is appended as Annexure „P-5‟ on page 188 of the case file. This judgment, Mr. Kapoor says, has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. (See Annexure P-6, which is appended on page 193 of the case file).
5. Accordingly, issue notice to the respondents. 5.1. Mr. Vinod Diwakar accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
6. Counter-affidavit will be filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, will be filed before the next date of hearing.
W.P.(C) 8100/2021 page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:12.08.2021 22:55:04
7. We may note that, there is a typographical error in the impugned order inasmuch as the date of superannuation of the petitioner has been recorded as, 30.09.2004, whereas, we are told that, the petitioner superannuated on 30.09.2014.
8. List the matter on 28.10.2021.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TALWANT SINGH, J AUGUST 10, 2021 aj Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 8100/2021 page 3 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:12.08.2021 22:55:04